This is typical consvervative conversation - ignore science when inconvinient, redefine terms, counter with anecdotes, claim victory. All your argument really is "I have defined gender as binary and everything outside it is abnormality, defect or error". Cool, you defined away all the nuance and real world implications, I guess overly simplistic stuff is your jam. It's like defining "everything I say is right and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong". By definition you would be wrong, but what good does it do?
>The only thing that this proves is that human genetics are error prone.
Error implies intentionality, there is nothing like that in genetics.
>: im part of a religious minority in my country, one that has in the past been violently opressed
Are you still being oppressed? Are you being actively discriminated against in job applications or in other significant ways? Are you in perpetual danger of being assaulted because of your religion? Could someone even identify that you are from said religious group if person didn't know you? If so, I guess doing nothing and bending over is your choice, but it's hardly a virtue. If not - you are not being oppressed in your day to day life, you have no point.
You are factually wrong that depicting minorities in media doesn't change society perception - for example dehumanising propaganda against Tutsi lead to Rwandan genocide and massive positive shift towards gay rights became once the media started showing gays as people.
Also it is more profitable for gaming companies - despite "be woke go broke" meme, movies with inclusive cast have been performing very well, and I suspect that's the major reason we see more minority representation in media.
